Date:  Fri, 8 Sep 1995 22:16:35 EDT

From:  Larry Horn <LHORN[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU>

Subject: Re: contempt vs. content



This is a question that particularly interests me, since one of my recent

research programs has exploited this very contrast. Let me explain and

illustrate.

  In a paper I gave at a conference in Helsinki in 1993 (following earlier

oral presentations of the same material) and wrote up for the proceedings, I

sponsored a slogan of the form "Familiarity Breeds CNTNT". The paper,

called "Economy and Redundancy in a Dualistic Model of Natural Language", was

published in SKY 1993 ("SKY" is, of course, an acronym for the Linguistic

Association of Finland--don't ask), edited by Maria Vilkuna and Susanna Shore.

  The first section of the paper is called



I. FAMILIARITY BREEDS CNTNT: an overview



and a relevant passage refers notes that



 "...the inverse correlation of familiarity and linguistic form--the

  principle I dub Familiarity Breeds CNTNT--is reflected by minimal pairs

  in which the locally more familiar or frequent member retains or comes

  to acquire reduced expression."

(This principle, unlike its cover label, is hardly my invention; it was iden-

tified by Paul, Martinet, and especially Zipf. I'll spare you the details,

since this isn't a pragmatics list, but sample illustrations of its effects

include the degree of vowel reduction in frequent words [astronomy vs.

gastronomy]; the initialization of OSU with different interpretations in the

midwest, southwest, and northwest; and the "marking reversals" noted by

Witkowski and Brown in their Language paper in 1983.)



   So a few months after the paper appeared, I received an outraged note

from a friend and colleague, who (while not a native speaker) evidently shares

the majority dialect of ADSers...



>Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:36:07 -0500

>From: Knud Lambrecht <lambrec[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]emx.cc.utexas.edu>

>To: lhorn[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]yalevm.ycc.yale.edu

>Subject: breeds cntNt ???



>I hve nthng bt cntMPt fr yr ignrnce, lrry.

>Or is it the Finns that screwed up?



You can all see where this is heading, and you can probably anticipate my

response to Knud...



>No, no, it's intentional, and in any case it's not the Finns' fault. Now I'll

>admit that the more standard and no doubt the original form of the adage is

>the -MP- version. But I've heard the other quite a bit too, and assume it

>responds to "Out of sight, out of mind", just as the other (your) version

>responds to "Absence makes the heart grow fonder". (Sort of like "Look

>before you leap" and "Fools go in where angels fear to tread" vs. "He

>who hesitates is lost".) In any event, since it's got to represent the

>idea that the more familiar or predictable the expression is, the more

>compressed the content can be, while keeping the form

>constant (cnstnt?), I need it to be my version.  Of course, this assumes a

>finesse over CONtent and conTENT as well as over familiarity's breedee, but I

>assume you'll let that one pass. Too bad there's no OED for adages.



My background is New York City > Rochester > Southern California > Northern

California >...  I have no idea where I might have picked up the "content"

version, and I freely acknowledge that I'm not the most impartial source.

In any case, I'm mr thn cntnt to welcome a few speakers with no career stake in

their judgment to my side of the isogloss.





--Larry